In a perfect example demonstrating the scaleability of the Klingon Bird of Prey, the Airbus 380 is a massive, double-decker airliner that seats 550 with range and speed equal or greater than the nearest competition, the Boeing 747 (with with it is designed to complete with and supplant).
And all in an airframe that isn't really that different than an Airbus 320 or even 340. Take THAT, K'vort class!
posted
Nice flying tin. I still have my thoughts about an 'airbus', but well, people has to fly cheap (and crammed), and with raising fuel prices these days, there's maybe no option.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You obviously haven't been treated to flying in an Airbus yet. Actually, the A380 is designed to seat up to 800 passengers, so 550 leaves ample room. In fact the machine can even be ordered with built in cinema, lounge, duty-free-shop etc. Just go to the websites of Emirates, Singapore Airlines etc. to see what world-class airlines have in store for future air travellers.
R.I.P. Boeing & Co.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You're right. I've only tried Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft. Maybe I should check a little more.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"And all in an airframe that isn't really that different than an Airbus 320 or even 340."
Well, the A380 is a scaled-up A320 in the same sense that the B747 is a scaled-up B707, and, despite being a truly awesome feat of engineering, really does no more than rely on the same old exploit of the scalable properties of aerodynamics that every other metal tube (aka. passenger aircraft) ever built has relied on since 1935, so, y'know.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
More to the point, the Airbus family is much more consistent within its own architecture than the Boeings or MDs of the world; a pilot requires far less cross training to qualify on Airbuses than different Boeing aircraft. They went so far as to put the cockpit between the two main decks on the A380, so pilot eye-line will be consistent with its other planes.
Almost a shame that the A380, being designed for interhub travel, might never land at my huge (but relatively out of the way) airports here in Alberta. When I go to Toronto in a few years, though...
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Which fits into the BoP parable."
Not entirely. An A320 directly scaled up to the dimensions of an A380 (which, in your analogy, would still be quite a bit less of an increase than the K'vort/B'rel size ratio, to say nothing of the monstrously large The Defector BoPs) wouldn't fly at all without drastic modifications to its airframe, nor would an A380 or hypothetically even larger aircraft scaled down to the dimensions of an A320. Aerodynamics may scale well, but structural mechanics don't.
And you're right about Airbus' flight-deck philosophy, but, while it has helped the company dethrone Boeing as the number one manufacturer of commercial airliners, cockpit instrumentation ultimately has little bearing on the design of a plane (Boeing could, if there was sufficient demand, retrofit its older aircraft types with the avionics suite of a 777, for instance), because instruments don't determine the flight envelope or operational parameters. Put in Trek terms, the bridge might be shared, but everything trailing behind it is in a bonafide class of its own. B)
[ January 18, 2005, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
To the untrained eye, which is what I'm getting at. I'm not diagreeing with you, but inasmuch as non-plane-freaks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an A320 and an A380 save for some windows, engine number and sheer size, nor would the average 24th century be able to spot the difference between a B'rel and a K'vort except for those same things, which is I guess what the producers of Trek expect us to believe.
quote:non-plane-freaks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an A320 and an A380
That's almost like saying
non-car-freaks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Mini and an X5
True, both A320 and A380 have wings, a fuselage, engines and tail, but I don't think anyone could mistake one for the other even when seen at quite a distance.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've seen just that - and in planespotting sessions, too. What I'm saying is that the "one-tube" design doesn't stick out among the dozen or so common designs that use it, without messing with the general arrangement. The Airbuses, 737/57/67/77 family et. al., all share the same arrangement, whereas an MD-11 or L1011 would look different, or a 727/DC-9, or the 747 itself. I know several people offhand who wouldn't know a 737 from a 777 from an A340, but could easily pick out the distinctive hump of a 747 any day.
posted
Well, you are right about the similarities of say the A340, 737 or 777.
The A380 on the other hand is double-deck all the way through, making for a very distinctive silhouette. It might not be graceful, but it's highly recognisable.
And about the plane-spotting sessions: how can you have spotted an A380 yet? - it has not even made it's first flight yet - let alone been to any airport around the globe...
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If I had my contacts out, I'd probably not easily tell between a silhouette of a 737 or an A380, as (compared to the Boeing widebodies or earlier Airbuses) they are both proportionately fat and stubby. I'm equating this sort of thing to the masses of people who don't know, or don't care to know.
And no, I haven't seen an A380 in person. I'm talking about everything else - and how, sitting in an airport obs gallery with a group of friends, have heard many people mistake one plane for another...
Someone needs to get off their ass and make a supersonic liner that people can actually afford to use...then I'll be duely impressed.
Sonehow, despite the increased passanger capacity, I think the fare to fly on this behemoth will be more than smaller planes/ airlines.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Forget supersonic. I want trans-atmospheric spaceplanes with a cruise speed of mach 15 and a twenty-thousand mile range. London to Tokyio in 90 minutes, baby. Death to the aircows.
(Boeing has an SST of sorts in the pipeline, which is technically not an "S"ST, but still.)
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Holy crap. How'd you manage to find THAT still on the external website? The Sonic Cruiser has been dead for a while now, since they decided to go forward with the 7E7 concept. I don't think there's any active work being done with that concept anymore.
(BTW, I work for Boeing, but in the defense division.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
